Supreme Court

The American Bar Association's stamp of approval for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito should help pave the way for his confirmation after Senate hearings this week. Still, no sooner had the ABA given Alito its highest rating than signs emerged that politics might still trump qualifications.

There should never be a political litmus test for a judicial nominee. Instead, senators should insist that a nominee be fair- and open-minded, and that he or she possess a respect for established law, an ability to think, speak and write clearly and precisely, and common decency and humanity.

Nonetheless, liberal senators and advocacy groups are preparing to moisten the litmus paper in their determination to keep the court from "moving to the right." They forget that one of the privileges of being elected president is that you get to try to move the court in the direction you want it to go. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way, because most judges, to their credit, follow the law rather than their own political inclinations. That's why political litmus tests are not just inappropriate, but foolish.

One area that should provoke concern, however, is the suggestion in Alito's past record that he believes executive power should be greatly enhanced relative to the other branches of government. The Constitution and more than 200 years of legal precedent have established quite clearly that the three branches of government are co-equal and must serve to check and balance one another. If Alito believes otherwise, he should not be confirmed.

Senators should question Alito closely on that point and any others they deem pertinent. But when it comes time to vote, they should focus on his judicial philosophy and qualifications, not his politics.

BOTTOM LINE: The rating is significant. Alito's politics should be irrelevant to whether he is confirmed by the Senate.